1. ' This appeal is filed by Mst. Naima Begum against Mst. Maqboolan and Mst. Shahzadi Shaheen.
2. According to the record of the rent case Mst. Naima Begum is tenant, Mst. Maqboolan is the landlady and Mst. Shahzadi Shaheen is the original tenant who is alleged to have sublet premises to the husband of Mst. Naima Begum. Impugned order in this appeal is dated 5-6-1983 by which defence has been struck off on the ground of non-compliance of tentative Rent Order which was originally passed on 10-3-1980 and was subsequently modified on 24-5-1980.
3. ' It may be mentioned here that there is connected F.R.A. No. 949/83 which is cross-appeal filed by landlady Mst. Maqboolan against the impugned order, stating therein, that there are certain observations in the impugned order on account of which impugned order has become non- executable hence the necessity to have modification of said impugned order.
4. ' Mr. Rehanul Hasan Farooqui, Advocate appearing for appellant Mst. Naima Begum in F.R.A. No. 554/83 has submitted that Rent Case from which this appeal arises was originally filed against Mst.
5. Shahzadi Shaheen as tenant on the grounds of default, subletting and personal need. Mst.
6. Shahzadi Shaheen contested the proceedings filed written statement and was party to the proceedings when both tentative rent orders mentioned above were passed. Present appellant Mst. Naima Begum was not impleaded as a party in the rent case and subsequently after the passing of two tentative rent orders when she came to know about the proceedings between Mst.
7. Maqboolan and Mst. Shahzadi Shaheen in the rent case concerning the same accommodation which was in her possession as owner, she filed application to be impleaded as a party on 4-12- 1982. Under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. which was allowed. Application for striking off defence was filed by Mst. Maqboolan on 19-5-1982 which was about seven months earlier than joining proceedings by the present appellant. It is further submitted by Mr. Rehanul Hasan Farooqui that both the tenative rent orders were passed in the proceedings and application under section 16, subsection (2) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed earlier in the absence of Mst. Naima Begum, who was then not a party to the proceedings as such Mst. Naima Begum cannot be punished for non- compliance with tentative rent order and her defence cannot be struck off. It is further submitted that Mst. Naima Begum has joined the proceedings with specific plea that she is in the occupation of disputed premises as owner and she had purchased the same from Mst. Maqboolan. In that context she had filed a suit for Declaration and Injunction in which order of status quo was granted favourable to her on the ground that she was in physical occupation of the premises in question.
8. Subsequently she filed another suit for cancellation of documents. The question that arises for consideration is that once Mst. Naima Begum has been allowed by the learned Rent Controller to join the proceedings, she should be allowed to put forward her plea and produce evidence in support thereof and she should not be shut out for non-compliance of tentative Rent Orders which were passed long ago when she was not a party to the proceedings, particularly in the light of the fact that she claims to be owner of the premises in question. I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by the leanned Rent Controller is illegal and in consistent with the provisions of law. I, therefore, set aside the impguned order and remand the case to the learned Rent Controller so that he should hear all the parties and then decide the case on merits after appraisal of evidence produced by the parties. It is stated that the rent case was filed in the month of February, 1979, in the circumstances Rent Controller is directed to complete the proceedings and decide the case afresh on merits within three months. Cross appeal stands disposed of in the light of order passed above.